It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: Former Bush Administration Economist Believes WTC Felled by Controlled Demolition

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:49 AM
Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist for the Department of Labor during Bush's first administration, let loose with startling words for the mainstream press this week. Reynolds believes that a "controlled demolition" is the only explanation for the totality of information surrounding the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001.
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

This is certainly a rather shocking opinion from a relatively high former official on the inside of the "beltway". An opinion that will certainly add new fuel to discussions of potential 9/11 government conspiracies.

Related Discussion Threads:
9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon
Forum Reference Index AND Thread for Discussing anything related to 9/11, Pentagon, etc.
9/11: The Facts and Conspiracies Surround the 9/11/2001 Attacks and the War on Terror
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:01 PM
This really sounds false, he's an economist not that highly placed in the administration. And it's his guess that it was explosives...

If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is

So, the story is factual as reported but, he's an economist, not a structural/demo expert. Sounds like he's got an axe to grind. Or he's pushing for a book deal.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:08 PM
Who is Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.?

His opinion pieces and ideas have been published in The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, National Journal, Investor's Business Daily, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News and other papers across the country. He has appeared on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS, NBC Nightly News, MSNBC's Hardball with Chis Matthews, CNN's Both Sides with Jesse Jackson, FOX News Channel and C-Span.

More links related to his recent WTC opinion:

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:11 PM

A contributor voting NO on your submission has indicated they did so because they feel your topic really isn't appropriate for ATSNN. Keep in mind that ATSNN is the news portal service of a conspiracy and alternative topic community.

Hehehehe.. just kidding.

Wow, this is something you don't see every day. A government official on the side of conspiracy theorists?

Ok he's an economist not a demolition expert but I think an economist would have the best grip on why it would be done, and that's more important than how.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

A contributor voting NO on your submission has indicated they did so because they feel your topic really isn't appropriate for ATSNN. Keep in mind that ATSNN is the news portal service of a conspiracy and alternative topic community.

Hehehehe.. just kidding.

Wow, this is something you don't see every day. A government official on the side of conspiracy theorists?

Ok he's an economist not a demolition expert but I think an economist would have the best grip on why it would be done, and that's more important than how.

Yes and he doesnt say anything about "why"

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:18 PM

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Ok he's an economist not a demolition expert

Well... his current position is rather interesting, considering his opinion:
"Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., Director of the Criminal Justice Center, National Center for Policy Analysis"

We may be seeing some increased traffic shortly.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:23 PM

Ok he's an economist not a demolition expert but I think an economist would have the best grip on why it would be done, and that's more important than how.

And if he was saying "it makes sense to drop those towers from an economic standpoint" then I would give his statement more weight. But he's making his statement based on the way they collapsed not the why.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:30 PM
You know that if eventually those in power have themselves backed in to a corner and have to admit there was demolition involved, that somehow the story will be spun that it was terrorists or terrorist sympathizers who placed the demolition and that the public wasn't told for some-odd reason or another. Scapegoats will suddenly appear and will be tried and convicted. And the sheep will go baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!


posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:32 PM
Well he obviously has a reason for saying it, and given his background it's likely to be from an economic standpoint.

Also, as SO said - he served as the Director of the National Center for Policy Analysis... This doesn't sound like a conspiracy kook looking for glory.

[edit on 6/15/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:52 PM
There are a few more opinions here as well I posted this a few days ago, as RedBalloon pointed out the Washington Times is running the story, and who owns the WT, Reverend Sun Myung Moon.

The list is growing are the Neo-Cons starting to bail out?

From ATS Former Bush Team Member Says WTC Collapse Likely A Controlled Demolition And 'Inside Job'

From the Arctic Beacon

More Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?- Morgan Reynolds

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:26 PM
Well if it did turn out to be true it wouldn't necessarily look bad on the Bush Admin. They could just say buildings of that magnitude are fitted with explosives in case the building was in danger of collapsing on its side e.t.c.
After the terrorist attack they could say that they believed the buildings were going to fall in this way, costing many more lives and so made the hard decision detonating them.

Obviously far fetched but it would get them out of a corner as people would understand a decision like that, as well as they would them shooting down the other plane before it cost anymore lives...then just spinning the story of passengers forcing it down to make people feel better about it.

Nah, it's rediculous isn't it?

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:33 PM
I'll have to disagree. There's no way that demolition charges brought down the building. I was on the Hoboken Ferry when the first plane struck the north tower. The explosion was tremendous and flames shot out the north, west and south sides (I couldn't see the east side of the building). The damage was quite substantial. A big fire ensued. The ferry driver hesitated (i.e., slowed the boat), but then decided to continue to the ferry dock. I departed the dock and observed the damage and fire in the north tower from the marina area with about 150 other people. Everyone was nervous but not panicky.

About 20 minutes later, when the second plane struck the south tower, I was standing next to the marina near Moran's Pub and the commodities exchange (by then all of the commodities people left their building). I could see the plane coming in fast from the south and it turned into the building. From my viewing angle I couldn't see it strike the southeast area of the building, but again the explosion was tremendous, larger in fact than the first. The front of the plane shot out of the north side of the building. That was when panic ensued in the spectators. The damage to the south tower builidng was much more substantial in appearance than that of the north tower. Also the damage was much lower in elevation. Thus the weight of building above the damaged area of and fire in the south tower was probably two to three times more massive. This is why the south tower fell before the north tower. There was no demolition charges. That statement is ludicrous.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 01:55 PM
Thanks, Fee1962.

No amount of eyewitnesses or real scientific analysis by actual experts in the field can possibly quell either a conspiracy theory or the chance for another anti-administration tirade by the Media.

Live video feeds of known demolitions do not compare to this theory either. Are we supposed to believe whoever placed these required two passenger jets as initiator charges?

It disturbs me that Big Media will publish and promote absolute hogwash when it can be spun to hurt the current administration, but anything that would cast the current administration in a positive light doesn't meet their journalistic or investigative "standards". Reports of found WMD's or nuclear programs by rogue nations are not published because they're "heresay" or from "unreliable" or "unsatisfactory" witnesses. Some middle management functionary or political arse-kissing appointee makes a statement that they are totally unqualified to make, and all that's needed for verification is that the claimant is/was an administration official.

We will, of course, continue to ignore statements made by soldiers, generals and policemen as "biased" and unworthy of presenting as news.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 02:21 PM
Hmm... Weird...

I would suppose if they were planning on bringing the towers down they would not use demolitions in the normal way - and they fully intended the planes to be the official cause/smokescreen.

That being said I find this sudden claim highly suspicious also.

However the whole 9/11 situation has sooo many questionable things about it (including G.W.'s strangely calm reaction) it is clear something is amiss.

Like the Kennedy assaination tho - I doubt any conclusive proof will be exposed after the fact.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:04 PM
What if what this guy's doing is all part of a set-up to help put down these rumors. He's a "former" member of the Bush administration. "Former" = axe to grind. He's an "economist". What the hell would an economist know about such things? Both of these points would lend zero credibility to what this guy's saying and tend to even further downplay this rumor. It could be a form of reverse psychology. Just a thought.


[edit on 15-6-2005 by Dr Love]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 03:33 PM

FDNY fire fighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9/11 gag order.

That is from a more in-depth article on Morgan Reynolds and his theory which can be found here.

I think that's kind of interesting. I would also like to add that just because this guy is an economist, doesn't mean that he doesn't know how to research science; let's remember that public opinion is democracy in action.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 04:32 PM
I could have sworn that in the days following September 11 the news said something about building number 7. They said that since that main WTC complex had weakend adjacent structures, to the point of being unsafe but didnt fall, they might have to go in with explosives to finish them off. They demo'ed it because it was unsafe for the e-workers on the ground. I am quite certian the news stated this. So why the big mystery?

[edit on 15-6-2005 by Event Horizon]

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 06:20 PM
this guy is an idiot.

Everyone has seem video footage of the collapse...and I heard no BOOM before it fell.

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:23 PM
I hate to use the statements of Alex Jones, but I do believe he was correct.

The explosion was a large incendiary explosion, it was not a military grade explosion, fires did not rage for that long, there was no towering inferno, infact, many people were trapped in the upper floor, they were suffocating, not burning to death, the explosion only created a large fireball from the kerosine, kerosine has a very high burning point and the fire would have little ogygen to fuel it at that altitude.

The twin towers should have easilly survived these planes hitting it, it was designed to be able to withstand planes hitting it, hurricane winds, earthquakes, etc.

Off_the_Street made a good point that the fire could have become hotter because of all the stuff burning inside, but the lack of ogygen would not allow it to last long, so the damage to the metal beams would not have been severe, also the majority of the weight was still on the bottom supporting the upper section, there has been various evidence that the tower exploded in sections, the beams were broken up in nice chunks that could be easilly transported by trucks.

I personally still believe it was a demolition job, no skyscraper has EVER collapsed from a fire, none.

I highly doubt the structral engineers of the WTC were THAT incompetant.

Also, there has been pictures of people peering out of the cavity left by the plane, they could never have survived if there was a raging inferno.

The explosion was powerful, but had no explosive power, it was a fireball that created little vibration, a key ingredient in making a building collapse, demolition charges use C4, these explosions create vibrations rather than fireballs, C4 would not create big fireballs like in the movies.

Who still wants to argue that the WTC wasn't an inside job? my mind is made up...

posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 08:00 PM
This coming on the same day that the House votes down a segment of the Patriot Act. Is there some kind of sea change against the neo-cons? Whats happening that we dont know about?

Is the ground swell of popular mistrust of the Bush administration finally catching them up? Lets hope so

Also any one that has seen the collapse footage of WTC7 cannot say with a straight face that fire brought it down. Not to mention the fact that prior to 9/11 NO steel structured building had ever fallen due to fire. Not once before 9/11 and not once since.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in